Town Square

Post a New Topic

Update: Atherton protest lasted 30 minutes

Original post made on Jul 15, 2010

Today's protest organized by the California Nurses Association in front of the Atherton home of Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman ended at 1:45 p.m., about 30 minutes after it began. ==I Photo by Michelle Le/The Almanac.==

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, July 15, 2010, 12:19 PM

Comments (25)

Posted by Mcj, a resident of Atherton: other
on Jul 15, 2010 at 11:13 pm

For Meg Whitman or not, shame on you nurses. Put your money toward something beneficial to California! Printed signs and chartered busses, what a waste.


Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Jul 16, 2010 at 7:03 am

It is still a free country. How much longer under Obama is anyone's guess. The nurses are just exercising their first amendment rights. I don't agree with their message but they do have the right to voice it.

But notice how when conservatives assemble to express their first amendment rights they are excoriated not only by the left but by the fourth estate as well- the one group who is supposed to be a strong advocate of the Bill of Rights.

As usual, with liberals the First amendment has two applications: 1) One for the omniscient liberals who thankfully know what is best for our country and without whose wisdom and guidance Western Civilization would have perished long ago; and 2) One for conservatives who need to be reigned in for questioning the wisdom of the sagacious left (Don't you conservatives know that we are only doing what is best for you?).

Thank God the mid term elections are coming up where Nancy Pelosi will be dethroned as second in line to assume the presidency (Scary thought isn't it) and will be relgated to being House Minority Leader.
[Portion removed. Stick to the topic.]


Posted by same old same old, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Jul 16, 2010 at 8:52 am

Obama BAD. Liberals BAD BAD. Pelosi SCARY. Hank, HANK. Same old propaganda and predictable garba....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Posted by Cynical de Bergerac, a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jul 16, 2010 at 12:05 pm

The above is a typical unimaginative liberal attack with no substance. Liberals these days seem to be focused on attacking capitalism, demonstrations, expanding government, and transferring wealth from those who have earned it to those who haven't who are unmotivated to work because liberals will give it to them for free.


Posted by Skeptical about Cynical, a resident of Menlo Park: University Heights
on Jul 16, 2010 at 12:29 pm

That you, Hank? If you really are Monsieur de Bergerac, you ought to be less careless with the truth. You really don't want that Pinocchio-nose of yours to grow any longer.


Posted by Chris, a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Jul 16, 2010 at 12:32 pm

What I find disturbing is a demonstration outside a candidate's home. That oversteps the boundaries between a private citizen and a candidate. If the nurses wanted to demonstrate, they should have selected a public site. I think their decision was absolutely wrong and sets a bad precedent. This time the event was peaceful, but if the tactic is used wholesale, it could smack of a threat: "I know where you live, so..." We've seen the published addresses of abortion doctors and the Brooklyn cartoonists, and the trend is frightening. Unfortunately I think the nurse's decision is symptomatic of an increasingly virulent political climate that favors personal attacks rather than rational discussion.


Posted by Sam, a resident of Atherton: other
on Jul 16, 2010 at 1:39 pm

This has more of a boost to MEG WHITMAN than her opponent who will remain unmentioned. While people love to claim their rights, they forget the responsibility we have to love one another and to be civil and polite which is really what holds our country together.


Posted by Susan B. Anthony, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jul 16, 2010 at 3:14 pm

The right to free speech includes peaceful protest. The majority of nurses are women and for that reason there is a heightened sense of importance to their challenge of Meg Whitman's run for the Governor's office. It begs the question of just who Ms. Whitman understands and represents if it's not working class women.

It wasn't that many years ago when another group of women protesters were arrested, wrongly convicted of "obstructing sidewalk traffic", and taken to prison where they were beaten and tortured for weeks before news was smuggled out to the press. They were suffragists – picketing the White House to gain the right to vote.

Whether you agree or disagree with the nurses' point of view, don't condemn them for gathering in front of Whitman's home – it was a last resort because she can't seem to be found anywhere and won't respond to any questions. She's never at her campaign headquarters, she doesn't have an office location or else it's in a secret bunker, and she evidently moves from place to place in the dead of night since she's almost impossible to engage in any unrehearsed exchange of ideas.

No one asked Ms. Whitman to become a public figure – it was her choice. She can't have it both ways – to be a representative of the public but to hide from the public she's asking to represent. If she tries to do so then that public has a right to find her. Family, neighbors and anyone else who feels intimidated by a protest in front of a would-be politician's home are encouraged to dial up Meg Whitman and ask her to make herself available elsewhere.


Posted by Susan is weeping, a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Jul 16, 2010 at 3:46 pm

It's ironic that Susan B. Anthony evokes the memory of suffragists fighting for the right for women to vote in a thread about Meg Whitman -- a woman who couldn't be bothered to vote in previous elections. Now, she wants us to vote for her. What cheek.


Posted by A non moose, a resident of Woodside: other
on Jul 16, 2010 at 4:11 pm

"It's ironic that Susan B. Anthony evokes the memory of suffragists fighting for the right for women to vote in a thread about Meg Whitman -- a woman who couldn't be bothered to vote in previous elections. Now, she wants us to vote for her. What cheek."

Bingo. On the nose.

There's a pro life group that hi-jacked the Susan B. Anthony name and is also supporting Carly.

Another woman who also couldn't be bothered to even have her aides get her the absentee ballot and mail it for her.

Susan B. Anthony must roll over in her grave at the thought of two women at those positions, with all those admins and support, who couldn't be bothered.


Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Jul 16, 2010 at 4:15 pm

So she did not vote. I did not think that was a prerequisite to run for public office. Compared to Jerry Brown, who allowed the State employees to unionize which then opened a pandora's box of runaway fiscal spending, she is a breath of fresh air.

Jerry's latest folly is to sue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they won't allow the State of of California to subrogate mortgage companys rights. He is a real piece of work. He makes Obama look like mainstream guy.

The bottom line is that Meg Whitman is fiscally responsible and Jerry Brown is the poster boy for fiscal irresponsibility. And what we need now is someone who can dig us out of this avalanche of debt. Meg can do it. Jerry will create such a Mount Everest of debt that even Michael Milliken would not be able to sell California Junk bonds which then will only be good for lining birdcages.


Posted by A Company is not a Government, a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jul 16, 2010 at 4:48 pm

Meg Whitman is fiscally responsible? Says who? Running eBay is not like running the State of California, and opposing Unions is not the secret key to financial stability. I'm no Jerry Brown fan, but I find Meg Whitman scary. She hasn't proven anything other than the fact that she has name recognition and a boatload of money, and unless she's planning to use some of it to balance the State budget then she'd better get out of her hole and start participating in open government. Or is she planning to govern California with a series of viscious TV ads?


Posted by A non moose, a resident of Woodside: other
on Jul 16, 2010 at 5:38 pm

Hank:

How is Meg's plan to cut the Calif cap gains tax "fiscally responsible", while the state is in this terrible, terrible situation???

Unless, by responsible, you mean personally saving her millions on her taxes every year.

for example, just for fun:
$1 billion x 3.5% interest on treasuries = $35 million subject to CA cap gains

Of course, that's just a hypothetical, we'll know more WHEN SHE RELEASES HER TAX RETURNS!


Posted by CC, a resident of Woodside: other
on Jul 16, 2010 at 9:58 pm

Some of us may vote with our feet and move to a more tax friendly state if this state decides to tax us anymore. At least with Meg Whitman, there is a chance this won't happen. You can guarantee that Jerry Brown will try and tax our way out of our deficit...and never forget his court appointees, i.e., Rose Bird as Chief Justice, if you want to see another Manson live out eternity in our prison system instead of meeting his maker 40 years ago.


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on Jul 16, 2010 at 10:17 pm

For the state to try to increase revenues by raising capital gains taxes is like a store trying to improve their sales by raising prices. That makes sense?

Unlike income taxes, capital gains taxes are only paid when someone sells something so they are purely discretionary and easily controllable. When there are high capital gains tax rates, someone just has to hold the asset indefinitely to avoid the tax... and that's what people do, especially if they are rich. But lower that tax to nuisance level rates - the equivalent of a store putting things on sale - and those same people will buy and sell all day long and pay the tax.

You don't have to be a genius to figure that one out.

And CC is absolutely correct - there is nothing more portable than money. Keep raising taxes and those wealthy people that pay all of those taxes can and will leave the state. Think that will never happen? Sorry, it already has. Read this Web Link


Posted by common sense, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 16, 2010 at 11:05 pm

The demonstration was in my neighborhood and I walked over to see what thousands of dollars spent on signs and buses looked like. I tried to ask several people why they were opposing Meg Whitman and not one had a real answer. Instead, they would repeat what the union bosses told them to say. Truth was in short supply and it is very sad that the unions have lied about Meg. She tried to contact the nurses, not their union bosses, to hear what their concerns are in general. That made the unions really mad because they don't want anyone talking directly to those they control--heaven forbid, the nurses might just have another opinion than that of the union boss. The mob kept saying that Meg was "hiding" from them. That is an out and out lie.

As to those above this post that have commented on Hank or other conservative voices, how about if you stop the personal attacks and just state your point. Have you ever noticed how liberals, when they don't have facts to support their position, resort to personal attacks? It is time to grow up and show some civility.


Posted by A non moose, a resident of Woodside: other
on Jul 17, 2010 at 7:44 am

Pogo: You artfully turned it around from Meg eliminating cap gains to someone allegedly raising them. Please show a link where someone said that.

So you have no comment on Meg's plan?

CC: interesting way of linking Jerry Brown to the specter of Manson. Right up there with the tea-bagger's Obama Hitler Lenin signs. Web Link

Again, the discussion was Meg's self serving plan to eliminate cap gains, I know why you seek to flip the discussion, but what are you referring to?

common sense: Meg isn't hiding? Why doesn't she rent Moscone and meet with all the nurses and anyone who wants to hear her sit down and have an open forum, with a panel of guests who represent working families? Why does she hide behind the $100 million veil/burka?

And who attacked Hank? Other than the nose comment for Cyranno, did I miss something?


Posted by POGO, a resident of Woodside: other
on Jul 17, 2010 at 10:01 am

A non moose -

I didn't say that I was responding to you or your post. I was refuting those who perpetually state that the way to raise revenues is to raise taxes. It is demonstrably untrue because historically tax revenues increase when tax rates are reduced. In fact, more often than not, tax rate increases have the opposite impact because people move into "tax avoidance" modes.

Capital gains are already taxed by the federal government and I'm not sure why California is entitled to tax them again, especially at "ordinary income" rates (as they are now). That doesn't mean that I agree with Ms. Whitman that they should be eliminated, but, because they result from discretionary transactions, I do think they should be subject to a greatly reduced rate or people will simply hold the asset.

But I do have a direct question for you. Since California now depends inordinately on high earners for income tax revenues - people making $100,000 (not exactly rich...) or more pay a whopping 85% of California income taxes - how do your respond to the web link I provided earlier showing the the mass exodus of rich people from high tax states like New Jersey? That story documented that the reason for the relocation was taxation.


Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Jul 17, 2010 at 10:22 am

Dear Non-Moosed,

Please get your facts straight. Meg Whitman offered to meet with the nurses. The Union leaders would not let them. The Union gave the nurses scripts to recite from just as if they were auditioning for a play. The Union bosses knew that Meg was in Southern California the day of the protest because they could not risk Meg being at home. Since, if Meg met with the nurses, it would have been an unmitigated disaster for the California Nurses Association.

The Union is scared to death about Meg Whitman meeting with the nurses without its oversight. Many of the nurses on deep background do not support their association because it rewards mediocrity. Is it any surprise that the good nurses don't want to be part of the CNA and the bad ones are clinging on for life support?

Meg Whitman wanted to send this letter to the California Nurses Association members:
Web Link

Rose Ann DeMoro--the executive director of of the California Nurses Association would not let her do it because it does not believe in fairness. It only wants its nurses to be exposed to its biased and distorted information and will not allow any rebuttal to its lies if it has anything to say about it.

Who is Rose Ann DeMoro? DeMoro, is a former Teamster organizer and is not a nurse. She is an unsavory political operative who has turned the California Nurses Association into an arm of the California Democratic Party and is notorious for engaging in heavy-handed politics (what a surprise).

DeMoro currently is paid more than $293,000 a year, nearly five times more than the median salary of a nurse in the United States. DeMoro's husband, Robert, is also on the California Nurses Association's payroll, with a salary of $142,254.


Posted by A non moose, a resident of Woodside: other
on Jul 17, 2010 at 5:30 pm

Hank:

I've heard "on deep background" that a bunch of nurses showed up with ample warning, for Meg to meet with, at her home. She could have changed her schedule, much as she has frequently done so to avoid open, honest questions from the media.

Try and deflect this to an attack on organized workers, for whatever your reasoning may be. But sooner or later folks will have to choose who to vote for: a candidate many of us are not happy about, but who has been successfully vetted and elected by the public many, many times; or a candidate who hides behind a $100 million slick glossy ad campaign.

Why won't she do a dozen debates so we can hear how, as a first timer, she is different from Arnold?


Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Jul 17, 2010 at 7:21 pm

It is not the nurses who are being attacked it is the Union. Meg is for the nurses. She knows far better than Jerry Brown how arduous their work is.

Meg offer to meet with the nurses. They chose to protest when the CNA knew she would be out of town. Now you try to spin this as being Meg's fault? That takes real Chutzpah.

Now on to the beloved California Nurses Association

Last year, the California Nurses Association spent more than $204,000 on junkets at expensive hotels, including nearly $50,000 at a luxury golf resort in Las Vegas.

Nearly 70 percent of the spending by the California Nurses Association goes to staff salaries. There are currently 99 employees at the union who make more than $100,000 a year. The median income of a nurse in the United States is only $62,400.

So far in the 2009-2010 election cycle, the California Nurses Association has spent more than $1.5 million on political contributions supporting Democratic candidates and liberal causes. There is no record of a single dollar being spent to support a Republican.

Sell your Brooklyn Bridge to someone else.


Posted by A non moose, a resident of Woodside: other
on Jul 17, 2010 at 7:56 pm

Just because you have a clear bias against unions and post all that doesn't mean Meg is "for" workers.

Who HAS Meg met with? What organized groups of workers?

How many debates HAS SHE PROPOSED?

Why won't she take questions from the press?

We want to know how she is different from Arnold. She already flip-flopped on the tea-baggers on immigration, this week.

$100 million and counting. Come out behind the veil Meg.

Come out, come out wherever you are....

But I can't resist: "$204,000 on junkets at expensive hotels"

Heck, that's almost as much as Meg spent to silence the woman she assaulted. Her own employee, no less.


Posted by Watcher, a resident of another community
on Jul 17, 2010 at 9:36 pm

So interesting to read this thread! Just as interesting is the fear of the well off and wealthy of being taxed under someone other than Whitman. I am so glad the nurses protested at Whitman's house. It was a peaceful, well-organized protest. It wasn't out of control or violent, there were no threats, no laws broken. All the fear mongering by the NIMBY type of anti-protestors is interesting. Whitman's a scary candidate, she couldn't be bothered to vote in the past and her performance at eBay was lacking, to put it mildly. It's great that a woman ran a successful Sili Valley company, but she ran it aground in some ways, so mucho egg-o on her face-o.

Nurses, keep protesting!


Posted by Scary Jerry, a resident of another community
on Jul 18, 2010 at 6:53 am

You go my friends.

So I did not get it right the first two times. The third time is a charm. And so what if Meg Whitman took a small company of 19 people that was so poor it couldn't afford desks and had to use card tables instead and brought it to over 7.6 Billion in revenues last year. Heck, I can spend the taxpayers money faster than Meg can earn it.

And Linda Rondstat can sing while Sacramento burns. A vote for Jerry is a vote against evil Capitalism. Come join me to build a more egalitarian State where each gives according to his abilities and takes according to his needs.


Posted by Interested, a resident of another community
on Jul 18, 2010 at 11:29 am

"Try and deflect this to an attack on organized workers, for whatever your reasoning may be. But sooner or later folks will have to choose who to vote for: a candidate many of us are not happy about, but who has been successfully vetted and elected by the public many, many times; or a candidate who hides behind a $100 million slick glossy ad campaign."


Well since you asked. I will be voting for the latter.

Oh and Hank....disagreeing with you does not make me a liberal.....


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Palo Alto quietly gets new evening food truck market
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 3,171 views

On Tour - The Highly Selective Liberal Arts Colleges: Occidental, Pitzer, and Scripps
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,908 views

See Me. Hear Me. Donít Fix Me.
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,624 views

Questions for Council Candidates--Housing
By Steve Levy | 24 comments | 1,345 views

Anglo Menlo Park
By Paul Bendix | 0 comments | 293 views